date:20180821




On 8/21/2018 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at
time = 0, and 100 microseconds later it has
produced a result that required going through
2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than
is possible for 200 things to go through in
100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44
seconds), then physically speaking it **must**
have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other
way to explain this result.  How can 200
things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an
electron wave function picking out one of 10^30
silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
interact with (which is also non-local, aka
simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is
a 1 followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase
relations between the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000
electrons toward our photographic plate through a 1000
holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase
relations.  The difference is only that we don't control
them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important
to consider is because when we control them to produce a
useful result, it becomes that much harder to deny the
reality and significance of the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view
of it as a computation, from a physical viewpoint it is
nothing unusual.  If I poked a 100 pinholes in a screen and
shone my laser pointer on it there would the same number of
"intermediate states" between the screen and a photo detector.


Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of
the computation, in a way that is easier to look over.



For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation
for the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily
verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what
they should be.


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of
silver halide molecules in your plate, but more than a
googol times the 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and
consistently compute over these 10^301 states, in this
system composed of only 1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that
can account for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it. 
All those qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order
to arrive at an answer.  So they all have to be in the same
world.  Your numerology is just counting interference
relations in this world, they don't imply some events in
other worlds.


Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already
established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states


That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements,
i.e. relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in
exponential in the number of things. They are not things
themselves, so it's specious to compare them to atoms.


in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there
enough Plank times to account for iterating over every possible
state involved in the computation in (one world). So where are
all of these states existing and being processed?





Also note that you can only read off 200bits of
information (c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of
intermediate st

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:47:11PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
>  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>      From: Brent Meeker 
> >>
> >>
> >>          Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where
> there's
> >>          heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.
> >>
> >>
> >>      I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a
> quantum
> >>      computer help?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> >>
> >> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably
> be
> >> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> >> Post-quantum_cryptography
> >>
> >> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
> websites
> >> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> >> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider,
> e.g. in
> >> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols)
> are
> >> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on 
> factoring
> >> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation
> of
> >> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> >>
> >> Jason
> > Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
> > Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
> > interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
> > factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
> > numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
> > important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
> > couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.
> >
> > Cheers
> 
> So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how
> long before Jason caught on.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have gone on for quite some time, I assure you. ;-)
> 
> Jason 
>

It's not sport to tease someone mercilessly - I felt it was time to
put Jason out of misery.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett <
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  From: Brent Meeker 
> >>
> >>
> >>  Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where
> there's
> >>  heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.
> >>
> >>
> >>  I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a
> quantum
> >>  computer help?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> >>
> >> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably
> be
> >> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> >> Post-quantum_cryptography
> >>
> >> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
> websites
> >> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> >> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider,
> e.g. in
> >> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols)
> are
> >> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
> >> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation
> of
> >> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> >>
> >> Jason
> > Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
> > Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
> > interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
> > factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
> > numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
> > important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
> > couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how
> long before Jason caught on.
>
>
It would have gone on for quite some time, I assure you. ;-)

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
> microseconds later it has produced a result that required going through
> 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things
> to go through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
> Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
> *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
> this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
> when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>

 It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
 picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
 interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


>>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>>> 301 zeros.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>>> answers".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
>> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
>> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
>> states.
>>
>>
>> Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a
>> computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual.  If I poked a
>> 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would the
>> same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo
>> detector.
>>
>
> Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the
> computation, in a way that is easier to look over.
>
>
>>
>> For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the
>> factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the statistics
>> of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.
>>
>>
>>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>>> the observable universe.
>>>
>>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>>
>>>
>> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account
>> for this?
>>
>>
>> I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those
>> qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an answer.
>> So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is just counting
>> interference relations in this world, they don't imply some events in other
>> worlds.
>>
>
> Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already
> established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states
>
>
> That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements, i.e.
> relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in exponential in the
> number of things.  They are not things themselves, so it's specious to
> compare them to atoms.
>
> in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there enough Plank
> times to account for iterating over every possible state involved in the
> computation in (one world). So where are all of these states existing and
> being processed?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
 Holevo's theorem).


>>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>>> correct answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.
>>> So you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>>
>>
>> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>>
>>
>>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>>
>>
>> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
>> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
>> known to us by causing different outcomes to manifes

Re: Many-minds interpretation?





On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:


On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

 From: Brent Meeker 


 Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
 heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.


 I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
 computer help?



Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Post-quantum_cryptography

All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying websites
you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider, e.g. in
digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols) are
vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation of
Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.

Jason

Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.

Cheers


So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how 
long before Jason caught on.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time =
0, and 100 microseconds later it has produced a
result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x
10^60 = states (more states than is possible for
200 things to go through in 100 microseconds even
if they changed their state every Plank time
(5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically
speaking it **must** have been simultaneous.  I
don't see any other way to explain this result. 
How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4
seconds, when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron
wave function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide
molecules on a photographic plate to interact with
(which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations
between the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward
our photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger
wave function approaching the photographic plate then also
has 1e301 different phase relations.  The difference is only
that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful
result, it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and
significance of the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of
it as a computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing
unusual.  If I poked a 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser
pointer on it there would the same number of "intermediate states"
between the screen and a photo detector.


Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the 
computation, in a way that is easier to look over.




For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify
the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times
the 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and
consistently compute over these 10^301 states, in this
system composed of only 1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can
account for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it. All
those qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive
at an answer.  So they all have to be in the same world.  Your
numerology is just counting interference relations in this world,
they don't imply some events in other worlds.


Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already 
established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states


That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements, i.e. 
relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in exponential in 
the number of things.  They are not things themselves, so it's specious 
to compare them to atoms.


in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there enough 
Plank times to account for iterating over every possible state 
involved in the computation in (one world). So where are all of these 
states existing and being processed?






Also note that you can only read off 200bits of
information (c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate
states necessary for the computation that is performed to
arrive at the final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than
you're getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in
the computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
> 
> From: Brent Meeker 
> 
> 
> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
> heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.
> 
> 
> I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
> computer help?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> 
> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Post-quantum_cryptography
> 
> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying websites
> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider, e.g. 
> in
> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols) are
> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation of
> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> 
> Jason

Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.

Cheers


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
 If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
 microseconds later it has produced a result that required going through
 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things
 to go through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
 Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
 *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
 this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
 when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?

>>>
>>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>>
>>>
>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>> 301 zeros.
>>
>>
>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>> answers".
>>
>>
>
> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
> states.
>
>
> Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a
> computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual.  If I poked a
> 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would the
> same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo
> detector.
>

Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the
computation, in a way that is easier to look over.


>
> For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the
> factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the statistics
> of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.
>
>
>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>> the observable universe.
>>
>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>
>>
> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
> this?
>
>
> I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those
> qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an answer.
> So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is just counting
> interference relations in this world, they don't imply some events in other
> worlds.
>

Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already established
there are not enough atoms to account for all the states in the whole
observable universe (one world), nor are there enough Plank times to
account for iterating over every possible state involved in the computation
in (one world). So where are all of these states existing and being
processed?


>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
>>> Holevo's theorem).
>>>
>>>
>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
>> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>
>
> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>
>
>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>
>
> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
> known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.
>
>
>> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
>> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
>> result.
>>
>
> I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
> measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
> the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
> you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
> after measurement will

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 7:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where
there's heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.


I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a
quantum computer help?



Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably 
be immune to quantum computers: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography


All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying 
websites you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in 
securing confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail 
provider, e.g. in digital signature, public key encryption, and key 
agreement protocols) are vulnerable. This includes not only RSA 
 whose security 
rests on factoring primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem 
which is the foundation of Diffie-Hellman 
 
key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography 
.


That wasn't what Bruce was interested in.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:05 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
 If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
 microseconds later it has produced a result that required going through
 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things
 to go through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
 Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
 *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
 this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
 when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?

>>>
>>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>>
>>>
>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>> 301 zeros.
>>
>>
>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>> answers".
>>
>>
>
> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
> states. For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
> the factorization of a large prime.
>
>
> Someone else is interested in factorizing primes?
>

My background is more in algorithms and cryptography, than physics or
quantum mechanics.


>
>   We can't so easily verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations
> are what they should be.
>
>
>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>> the observable universe.
>>
>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>
>>
> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
> this?
>
>
> Yes.
>

We're listening.


>
> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. Holevo's
>>> theorem).
>>>
>>>
>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
>> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>
>
> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>
>
>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>
>
> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
> known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.
>
>
> The superposition exists in our branch.
>

That is one way of using the term branch.  Another is that a superposition
is when multiple branches can interfere because everything else about them
is the same.


>
> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
>> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
>> result.
>>
>
> I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
> measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
> the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
> you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
> after measurement will be a perfect square.
>
>
>>
>> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
>> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be able
>> to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach of
>> classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems will
>> still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by
>> specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum
>> algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be
>> slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that shows
>> up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm
>> for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
>> O

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and
100 microseconds later it has produced a result that
required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states
(more states than is possible for 200 things to go
through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then
physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous. 
I don't see any other way to explain this result. How
can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave
function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on
a photographic plate to interact with (which is also
non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between
the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our
photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave
function approaching the photographic plate then also has 1e301
different phase relations.  The difference is only that we don't
control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to 
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful result, 
it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and significance of 
the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a 
computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual. If I poked 
a 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would 
the same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo 
detector.


For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the 
factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the 
statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.



This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the
10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only
1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account 
for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those 
qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an 
answer.  So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is 
just counting interference relations in this world, they don't imply 
some events in other worlds.





Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information
(c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the
final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than you're
getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.


What is interference, but information flow between different parts of 
the wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their 
presence known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our 
own branch.


Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is
probably correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have
confidence in the result.


I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the 
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm 
computes the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the 
only answer you should get (assuming perfect construction of the 
quantum computer) after measurement will be a perfect square.


Right.  There are some quantum algorithms that give probability 1 answer.



Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They
should be able to solve protein folding and similar problems that
are out of reach of classical computers.  But they're not a magic
bullet.  Most problems will still be solved faster by con

Re: Many-minds interpretation?


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and
100 microseconds later it has produced a result that
required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states
(more states than is possible for 200 things to go
through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then
physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous. 
I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How
can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave
function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on
a photographic plate to interact with (which is also
non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between
the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our
photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave
function approaching the photographic plate then also has 1e301
different phase relations.  The difference is only that we don't
control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to 
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful result, 
it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and significance of 
the intermediate states. For instance, we can verify the result of a 
Shor calculation for the factorization of a large prime.


Someone else is interested in factorizing primes?

  We can't so easily verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase 
relations are what they should be.



This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the
10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only
1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account 
for this?


Yes.


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information
(c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the
final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than you're
getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.


What is interference, but information flow between different parts of 
the wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their 
presence known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our 
own branch.


The superposition exists in our branch.


Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is
probably correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have
confidence in the result.


I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the 
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm 
computes the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the 
only answer you should get (assuming perfect construction of the 
quantum computer) after measurement will be a perfect square.



Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They
should be able to solve protein folding and similar problems that
are out of reach of classical computers.  But they're not a magic
bullet.  Most problems will still be solved faster by conventional
von Neumann computers or by specialized neural nets.  One reason
is that even though a quantum algorithm is faster in the limit of
large problem size, it may still be slower for the problem size of
interest.  It's the same problem that shows up in classical
algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm for
matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for
matrices too large to be processed in existing computers.


So where do you stand concerning the re

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Brent Meeker 
>
>
> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.
>
>
> I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
> computer help?
>

Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
immune to quantum computers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
websites you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in
securing confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail
provider, e.g. in digital signature, public key encryption, and key
agreement protocols) are vulnerable. This includes not only RSA
 whose security rests on
factoring primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the
foundation of Diffie-Hellman
 key
exchange and elliptic curve cryptography
.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
>>> microseconds later it has produced a result that required going through
>>> 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things
>>> to go through in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
>>> Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
>>> *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
>>> this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
>>> when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>>
>>
>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>
>>
> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 301
> zeros.
>
>
> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the 1000
> qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate through
> a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the photographic
> plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The difference is
> only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".
>
>

The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider is
because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
states. For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the
statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.


> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
> the observable universe.
>
> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>
>
Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
this?



>
>
>> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
>> Holevo's theorem).
>>
>>
> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
> correct answer.
>
>
> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>

You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.


> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>

What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.


> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
> result.
>

I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
after measurement will be a perfect square.


>
> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be able
> to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach of
> classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems will
> still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by
> specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum
> algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be
> slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that shows
> up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm
> for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
> O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for matrices too
> large to be processed in existing computers.
>

So where do you stand concerning the reality of the immense number of
intermediate states the qubits are in before measured?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.co

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-21 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:29 PM,  wrote:

>* So Copenhagen gives an incomplete account of measurement, whereas MWI
> gives none,*

Yes.

> *> making the latter obviously superior?*
>

Yes.

Measurement (whatever that means) plays a key part of Copenhagen can take
it or leave it. MWI says "if you want to call something anything or nothing
a measurement feel free to do so because it has nothing to do with me".

> * >And you have yet to give a rigorous account of the fundamental tenet of
> MWI, namely, that every possible outcome must be realized, except to make
> vague appeals to the SWE.*
>

There is nothing vague about it, the SWE says absolutely nothing about it
collapsing. Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (GRW) have added extra terms to the
SWE  making a complex equation even more complex and much more difficult to
work with but the modified equation does spontaneously and randomly
collapse. The predictions made by the standard Schrodinger equation and
version made by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber are different but the difference
is too small to be detected with current experiential methods, if it is
ever detected and it comes out the GRW way then the MWI would be pretty
much dead. However as of today there is zero experimental evidence in favor
of it, those extra terms were added ad hoc and stuck in for no reason
except to get rid of the MWI. Occam's razor says if 2 theory give the same
result then pick the simplest one, and the standard SWE is far simpler than
the GRW version.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?


From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's 
heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.


I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a 
quantum computer help?


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
microseconds later it has produced a result that required
going through 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than
is possible for 200 things to go through in 100 microseconds
even if they changed their state every Plank time (5.39121 x
10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have
been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this
result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4
seconds, when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic
plate to interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 
301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the 
1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate 
through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the 
photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The 
difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong 
answers".


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide 
molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms 
in the observable universe.


What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently 
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 
atoms?


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states 
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final 
and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  
So you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.  
Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the 
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.  Also, many 
quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably correct.  So 
you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the result.


Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy 
reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be 
able to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach 
of classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems 
will still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by 
specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum 
algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be 
slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that 
shows up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd 
algorithm for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the 
Strassen O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for 
matrices too large to be processed in existing computers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if 
only you understand Everett.


Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.



There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, 
like when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the 
state of lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The 
electron state is a superposition of all position possible in the 
corresponding orbital. After measurement she is entangled with that 
electron, and we have an infinity of Alice. OK? (I assume of course 
some classical QM; that might need some correction when GR is used).


I am OK with this, as I have said before. This is just the infinity that 
comes with measuring position or momentum of a particle in a wave packet.


The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, 
is typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet 
state ud - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of 
finding u, or d for any measurement she can do in any direction. Both 
Alice and Bob are maximally ignorant of their possible measurement 
results. The MW on this, or a MW way to interpret this, to keep the 
rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of couples Alice+Bob, 
with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit assumption 
is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.


But that is not part of quantum mechanics in Everett's or any other 
interpretation. It is an infinite superposition that you have added on 
for your own reasons. I have previously offered some suggestions as to 
how you could create such a superposition in a conventional way. One 
obvious possibility is to have Alice choose her measurement angle 
according to some random quantum process, such as radioactive decay.


But the problems with any such suggestion are obvious. Firstly, Alice 
does not choose her measurement angle in that way, so there is no 
super-superposition created. Secondly, this construction does not 
restore the rotational symmetry in any case. You might have an infinite 
number of Alices, measuring the singlet at all possible angles, but that 
multi-multiverse is not rotationally symmetric either! All it needs is 
for Alice number 7,234,826 to poke her tongue out and the rotational 
symmetry is lost! Of course, you could add yet more multiverses to cover 
every possible deviation of Alice from the stationary state. But the 
process rapidly becomes ridiculous.


So this Rube Goldberg construction of additional multiverses of 
superpositions does not actually restore stable rotational symmetry. So 
why propose such a construction? William of Ockham will rise out of his 
grave to haunt you for such pointless extravagance of entities!


And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does 
not force the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of 
information, which actually would require a third person indeterminacy 
in Nature, which I doubt).


It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this 
implies maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction 
is chosen. After the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither 
Alice and Bob will be able to access a different world. All Alice and 
Bob will have to interpret the state like if it was s simple (two 
terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the global phase of the 
state.


And what is the problem with regarding it like this? Even if you add in 
these arbitrary multi-superpositions, you end up with an Alice making a 
single measurement in some particular direction and communicating with 
her partner Bob, who was always in the same world. All your additional 
worlds add only smoke and confusion -- they do not actually change 
anything of substance. Alice's measurement on the non-separable state 
destroys the original rotational symmetry of that state -- and nothing 
that you can do will ever restore that symmetry.




The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all 
there is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.


That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change 
anything in the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys 
symmetries only in the relative first person mind associated to 
bodies doing the experience.


It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to 
believe that symmetry cannot be destroyed,


The symmetry is destroyed from the perspective of the one doing the 
experiment. But it is extended to the couple Alice + the singlet 
state, although “rational symmetry” might be have its usual definition 
slightly enlarged.


I don't think there is any way in which you can "enlarge" the definition 
of rotational s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:00:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds 
>> later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x 
>> 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things to go through 
>> in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time 
>> (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have 
>> been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How 
>> can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is 
>> 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>
>
> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function picking 
> out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to 
> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>

*It's hard to keep up with you. When I claimed the wf sort-of propagates 
instantaneously at its creation since, say, the probability density for 
double slit extends from minus to plus infinity, you claimed I was making 
unrealistic assumptions about initial conditions, such as assuming the 
screen extends to infinity. Would appreciate clarification on this issue. 
Does the wf in complex plane extend to infinity in real and imaginary axis? 
In general, does the positively valued probability density extend to minus 
and plus infinity? TIA, AG*

Brent

*Impressive calculation to be sure, but is this a theoretical value based 
on the assumption I deny; or is it achieved by a working quantum computer? 
AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds
>> later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x
>> 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things to go through
>> in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time
>> (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have
>> been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How
>> can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is
>> 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>
>
> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function picking
> out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>
>
Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 301
zeros.  This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?



> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. Holevo's
> theorem).
>
>
True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states necessary
for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and correct
answer.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:


 On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
 gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How
>> do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and 
>> d.
>> >>
>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are
>> not there?
>> >
>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both
>> slits in the same world...thus being non-local.
>>
>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a
>> wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
>> “one
>> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
>> Mechanism.
>>
>
> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
> you
> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
> woo-woo
> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
> this
> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>

 *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
 particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
 because
 particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In 
 any
 event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just 
 takes us
 down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*


 Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two
 slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor.
 There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
 participate in
 parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence 
 by
 the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all
 results obtained in the parallel branches.

>>>
>>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>>


>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum
> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a
> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where
> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>

 It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

>>>
>>> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is
>>> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum
>>> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out
>>> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating
>>> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the
>>> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are
>>> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your
>> view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the
>> computational power of a quantum computer.
>>
>
> *I am not doubting the existence of the superposed states; just their
> *interpretation* which is key to achieving the postulated speeds of quantum
> computers. See comment below. AG *
>
>>
>>
>>>


>
> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory.
> It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be
> eliminated. AG*
>


 You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100
microseconds later it has produced a result that required going
through 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible
for 200 things to go through in 100 microseconds even if they
changed their state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds),
then physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous.  I
don't see any other way to explain this result.  How can 200
things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is
5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function 
picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate 
to interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. 
Holevo's theorem).


Brent



*Impressive calculation to be sure, but is this a theoretical value 
based on the assumption I deny; or is it achieved by a working quantum 
computer? AG *


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?



On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
>>> gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How 
> do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and 
> d. 
> >> 
> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are 
> not there? 
> > 
> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both 
> slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>
> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a 
> wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
> “one 
> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
> Mechanism. 
>

 *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
 measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
 you 
 fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
 woo-woo 
 land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
 this 
 illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *

>>>
>>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
>>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>>> because 
>>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In 
>>> any 
>>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
>>> us 
>>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two 
>>> slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. 
>>> There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
>>> participate in 
>>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence 
>>> by 
>>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all 
>>> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>>>
>>
>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>
>
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>
> Jason
>

 *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
 interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
 superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where 
 that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*

>>>
>>> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>>
>>
>> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is 
>> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum 
>> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
>> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
>> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
>> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
>> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG 
>>
>
>
> These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your 
> view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the 
> computational power of a quantum computer.
>

*I am not doubting the existence of the superposed states; just their 
*interpretation* which is key to achieving the postulated speeds of quantum 
computers. See comment below. AG *

>  
>
>>
>>>  
>>>

 * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. 
 It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be 
 eliminated. AG*

>>>
>>>
>>> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits 
>>> enter the superposition of all possible states, 
>>>
>>
>> *See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the 
>> sup

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/21/2018 6:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:



You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the 
symmetry breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction 
with the singlet state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier 
post here:


"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and 
can be reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still 
exists in some sense. If I place a large weight at some point on 
the circumference of a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of 
that wheel is lost. The fact that I can reverse the process by 
removing the imposed weight does not mean that the altered wheel 
is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”


OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the 
symmetry is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the 
symmetry is lost from her point of view, but the general symmetry 
of the state has not changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice 
(unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).


Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I 
made above,


Stop speculating on people.


I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.



How do you know I did not make some effort. Maybe you imagine that I 
am clever or something. You might need to develop some sense of pedagogy.








or to respond to it intelligently.


Sop making judgement.


There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.


That is a contradiction.






It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in 
good faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of 
the situation.


This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if 
only you understand Everett.


Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.



There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, 
like when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the 
state of lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The 
electron state is a superposition of all position possible in the 
corresponding orbital. After measurement she is entangled with that 
electron, and we have an infinity of Alice. OK? (I assume of course 
some classical QM; that might need some correction when GR is used).


This assumes that Alice has used a measuring instrument whose 
interaction is spherically symmetric.  It is because her instrument has 
an infinite (or at least very big) number of possible results that there 
are an infinity (or many) Alice's.


The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, 
is typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet 
state ud - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of 
finding u, or d for any measurement she can do in any direction.


But direction is chosen via her thought processes which are effectively 
classical.  Her wf is not rotationaly symmetric. It could be arranged 
that some quantum random number generator is used to set the detector 
angle to X.  In that case the multiverse would split into many different 
branches when the qrng result decohered and output X.  But this event 
would still leave Alice and Bob spacelike separate in the world where 
the qrng output X.  There will be many branches corresponding to the 
many possible values of X. But in each branch the change of the wf when 
Alice measures the spin along X will be a non-local splitting into 
"up-X" or "down-X".   At least that's conventional QM.


Brent

Both Alice and Bob are maximally ignorant of their possible 
measurement results. The MW on this, or a MW way to interpret this, to 
keep the rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of couples 
Alice+Bob, with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit 
assumption is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.
And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does 
not force the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of 
information, which actually would require a third person indeterminacy 
in Nature, which I doubt).


It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this 
implies maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction 
is chosen. After the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither 
Alice and Bob will be able to access a different world. All Alice and 
Bob will have to interpret the state like if it was s simple (two 
terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the global phase of the 
state.








The measurement that Alice makes dest

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do
 you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d.
 >>
 >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are
 not there?
 >
 > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both
 slits in the same world...thus being non-local.

 The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a
 wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one
 world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
 Mechanism.

>>>
>>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
>>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you
>>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>>> woo-woo
>>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this
>>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>>
>>
>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>> because
>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any
>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
>> us
>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>
>>
>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits.
>> If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a
>> “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in
>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by
>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all
>> results obtained in the parallel branches.
>>
>
> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>
>>
>>
 No it's something you can already buy and use today:



 https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/

 Jason

>>>
>>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum
>>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a
>>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where
>>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>>
>>
>> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>
>
> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is
> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum
> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out
> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating
> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the
> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are
> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG
>


These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your
view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the
computational power of a quantum computer.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory.
>>> It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be
>>> eliminated. AG*
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits
>> enter the superposition of all possible states,
>>
>
> *See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the
> superposition itself, but the assumption that a system in a superposition
> is simultaneously in all component states of the superposition. AG*
>
>

If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds
later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x
10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things to go through
in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time
(5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have been
simultaneous.

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno



On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 7:16:51 PM UTC, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> I'm fairly surprised you're not more sympathetic to Bruno's ideas in light 
> of this. What could it mean for a universe to split if the physical is 
> primary?  
>

*The advocates of MWI can't explain the splitting as a physical process. 
Like Clark, they rely completely on the mathematics, even though, as I 
pointed out exhaustively, mathematics sometimes give specious solutions -- 
such as plane waves and advanced waves in classical E&M. AG*

>
> I'm sympathetic to AG's revulsion of the universe splitting into infinite 
> branches. The one thing that makes MWI palatable to me is the idea that the 
> platonic (which is easier to see as infinite) is primary. All possible 
> universal splits already exist in platonia (because all possible 
> computations exist there) - our path along a particular trace in platonia 
> is analogous to our traveling through time in a block universe.
>
> Terren
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM, > 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> >
>>> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. 
>>> *Measurement 
>>> exists in Copenhagen and MWI,
>>>
>>
>> Copenhagen has never explained exactly what a "measurement" is, MWI says 
>> a measurement is no different from any other sort of interaction. To the 
>> MWI it makes no difference if a photon hits a photographic plate or a brick 
>> wall because in both cases there was a interaction and something changed 
>> and so the universe split; in one universe the photon hits a obstacle and 
>> is destroyed and in the other universe there was no obstacle and the photon 
>> survives and continues into infinite space.  But Copenhagen says 
>> measurement is a very special but vaguely specified sort of interaction 
>> with all sorts vaguely specified powers.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno



On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:55:51 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM, > 
> wrote:
>  
>
>> >
>> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. 
>> *Measurement 
>> exists in Copenhagen and MWI,
>>
>
> Copenhagen has never explained exactly what a "measurement" is, MWI says a 
> measurement is no different from any other sort of interaction. To the MWI 
> it makes no difference if a photon hits a photographic plate or a brick 
> wall because in both cases there was a interaction and something changed 
> and so the universe split; in one universe the photon hits a obstacle and 
> is destroyed and in the other universe there was no obstacle and the photon 
> survives and continues into infinite space.  But Copenhagen says 
> measurement is a very special but vaguely specified sort of interaction 
> with all sorts vaguely specified powers.
>
> John K Clark
>

*So Copenhagen gives an incomplete account of measurement, whereas MWI 
gives none, making the latter obviously superior? And you have yet to give 
a rigorous account of the fundamental tenet of MWI, namely, that every 
possible outcome must be realized, except to make vague appeals to the SWE. 
AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:

We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument. I have:

Clearly. I was referring to the enumeration in the SANE2004 paper, which is
kind of canonical:

OK. I also have the SANE paper.

7) The seventh step introduces the Universal Dovetailer (UD). Let N denotes the
set of
natural numbers. A function from N to N is said to be total if it is defined on
all natural
numbers. A function is said to be computable iff there is a programme FORTRAN
which
computes it12. Church thesis (CT) makes the particular choice of FORTRAN
irrelevant. CT
claims that all computable functions, total or not, are computed by algorithm
expressible in
FORTRAN. In particular all total computable functions are computed by such
FORTRAN
program...

Yes I understood it introduced the UD and per the C-T inferred that all
possible computations are performed by it.

Bruno wrote,"In that case consciousness is associated with a digital
self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality"

I objected, "But you didn't show that."

You responded, "This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty
much required for the Church Turing thesis to hold."

So I still don't see why the UD implies consciousness is associated with a
digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom” (primary)
physical reality from an arithmetical reality.

It is not the UD which implies this, but just the digital mechanist hypothesis.
A person whose brain is in a vat, with the right configuration, cannot know
that she is in a brain in a vat. Similarly, we cannot know if we are processed
by something primarily physical or not. If I implement the combinators in
FORTRAN or in LISP, no combinators can distinguish the two from their personal
experience (that without observation). Same for the arithmetical/physical.

The UD is used to formulate the measure problem, not to argue that a digital
machine cannot distinguish an arithmetical from a physical “master machine”,
which is a direct consequence of digital mechanism.

It seems to me like the rock that computes everything. The UD is effectively
running every possible simulation at once

So to speak. The universal dovetailer has to dovetail, of course.

and so is simulating everything at once. Whether some thread within it
simulates you or simulates a rock on alpha centauri becomes a matter of
interpretation.

? If it simulates you, you will feel to be conscious. The point will be that
there is no rock which could ever be simulable by any computer, except those
exloiting directly the infinities of computations below our level of
substitution, like plausibly, a quantum computer.

The computations of the UD can have no unique interpretation.

A computation *is* an interpretation, made by a universal machine. That is what
the universal do: computation.

But that doesn't make it an interpretation. My wristwatch does
universal computation.

Then with mechanism, some can be associated to consciousness, when they emulate
self-referential entity.

Can you watch a running program and tell that it is emulating a
self-referential entity or not?

If curiosity is conscious on Mars, it has to be conscious in the virtual mars
during its training on Earth, and it has to be conscious in arithmetic, in
virtue of the same number relations.

Exactly my point. The Mars Rover is not conscious simpliciter, it is
conscious of its body and its environment. The program running on it's
cpu could have any interpretation; it is only its connections to the
environment that provide a definite interpretation. The enivronment can
be simulated too, but then the closed system cannot provide its own
interpretation. Number relations do not of themselves provide an
interpretation.

8) Yes, but what if we don’t grant a concrete robust physical universe? Up to
this
stage, we can still escape the conclusion of the seven preceding reasoning
steps, by
postulating that a ‘‘physical universe’’ really ‘‘exists’’ and is too little in
the sense of not being
able to generate the entire UD*,

The entire UD is infinite. So it cannot exist in the physical universe.

Better to not assume a “god" when doing metaphysics; It biases the whole
reasoning.The idea that seeing is the criterion of reality is the Aristotelian
speculation that Plato warned us to not fall in.

Exactly. You are assuming a UD god that is infinite.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send

Re: Many-minds interpretation?



On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>>>


 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do 
>>> you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are 
>>> not there? 
>>> > 
>>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both 
>>> slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>>>
>>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave 
>>> of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one 
>>> world” is 
>>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism. 
>>>
>>
>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you 
>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>> woo-woo 
>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this 
>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>
>
> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
> because 
> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any 
> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
> us 
> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>
>
> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits. 
> If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a 
> “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in 
> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by 
> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all 
> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>

 *No. It's all nonsense. AG *

>
>
>>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where 
>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>
>
> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>

*But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is 
applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum 
of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG 

>
>  
>
>>
>> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. It's 
>> a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be eliminated. 
>> AG*
>>
>
>
> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits 
> enter the superposition of all possible states, 
>

*See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the 
superposition itself, but the assumption that a system in a superposition 
is simultaneously in all component states of the superposition. AG*
 

> which is why it becomes exponentially hard to predict what happens with a 
> larger number of qubits in a quantum computer.  This is why large scale 
> quantum computers must be built, we can't just simulate them with regular 
> computers because the number of states it is simultaneously in quickly 
> becomes enourmous:
>
> 1 qubit: 2 states
> 5 qubits: 32 states (you can use this quantum computer for free on the 
> link I provided)
> 10 qubits: 1024 states
> 20 qubits: 1,048,576 states (you can pay to use this quantum computer today
>
 

> )
> 30 qubits: 1,073,741,824 states
> 50 qubits: 1,125,899,906,842,624 states (IBM recently built a quantum 
> computer with 50 qubits 
>

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-21 Thread Terren Suydam

I'm fairly surprised you're not more sympathetic to Bruno's ideas in light
of this. What could it mean for a universe to split if the physical is
primary?

I'm sympathetic to AG's revulsion of the universe splitting into infinite
branches. The one thing that makes MWI palatable to me is the idea that the
platonic (which is easier to see as infinite) is primary. All possible
universal splits already exist in platonia (because all possible
computations exist there) - our path along a particular trace in platonia
is analogous to our traveling through time in a block universe.

Terren

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM,  wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. 
>> *Measurement
>> exists in Copenhagen and MWI,
>>
>
> Copenhagen has never explained exactly what a "measurement" is, MWI says a
> measurement is no different from any other sort of interaction. To the MWI
> it makes no difference if a photon hits a photographic plate or a brick
> wall because in both cases there was a interaction and something changed
> and so the universe split; in one universe the photon hits a obstacle and
> is destroyed and in the other universe there was no obstacle and the photon
> survives and continues into infinite space.  But Copenhagen says
> measurement is a very special but vaguely specified sort of interaction
> with all sorts vaguely specified powers.
>
> John K Clark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?





On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The consequence of the brain being digitally emulable at some relevant 
level entails that matter obeys the laws of the formal mathematics of 
Z1 and Z1* (and others).


As I understand your theory, the mind (not the brain) is a sequence of 
states in threads of computation by the UD.  These threads are picked 
out by some as yet unknown statistic that makes them constitute a 
sequence of thoughts, aka "observer moments".  Matter and the physical 
world exists only as an implication or inference of these thoughts.  
Thats your reversal of psychology and physics. Right?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?





On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



  If everything is digital,



99,98 % of the arithmetical reality is not digitally emulable. 
Only brain and computers are digital with mechanism. Our body are not. 
That is how the non cloning can be proved from mechanism. No piece of 
matter at all could ever be simulated by a computer.


You contradict yourself within one sentence.  "A brain is digital and 
our body is not"??


"No piece of matter at all could ever be simulated by a computer." but 
it is simulated or created by the UD.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-21 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM,  wrote:

> >
> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. 
> *Measurement
> exists in Copenhagen and MWI,
>

Copenhagen has never explained exactly what a "measurement" is, MWI says a
measurement is no different from any other sort of interaction. To the MWI
it makes no difference if a photon hits a photographic plate or a brick
wall because in both cases there was a interaction and something changed
and so the universe split; in one universe the photon hits a obstacle and
is destroyed and in the other universe there was no obstacle and the photon
survives and continues into infinite space.  But Copenhagen says
measurement is a very special but vaguely specified sort of interaction
with all sorts vaguely specified powers.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 15:51, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> The symmetry is destroyed from the perspective of the one doing the 
> experiment. But it is extended to the couple Alice + the singlet state, 
> although “rational symmetry” might be have its usual definition slightly 
> enlarged. 

Of course I meant "rotational symmetry. Not "rational”!

Bruce, let add this. The “problem” with quantum mechanics is that a system can 
have a precise state without its subsystem having any definite state. But each 
subsystem can still have perfectly definable relative state with respect to 
another subsystem. The universal wave, if that exists, might not have any well 
defined subway, but all relative histories admitting consistent histories to 
develop exists, in my way to understand Everett.

It is not much that the singlet state describe a collection of different sort 
of superposition, it is that a superposition is equal to a different 
superposition, which could have been selected would Alice changed its mind.

When I will be back to QM in my course, I will try to analyse this on the GHZ 
state with my student. Plausibly. 

Anyway, if the wave is the correct description of physics, when we use the 
mechanist theory of mind, like Everett, the wave itself has to be recovered by 
a solution of a more complex measure problem, but for which computer science 
and mathematical logics provides many technical tools.

Bruno

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM  wrote:

> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really
> don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct
> words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA.
>
>
>

Bruno provided a great definition and background of the Church-Turing
Thesis. I will try to answer why it is important and comes up often in our
discussion.

The Church-Turing thesis says that anything that is computable is
computable by any computer.  In other words, there is nothing that the
computer in your cell phone can't compute, that your laptop or that a super
computer (or even a quantum computer) can.  It just comes down to having
enough time and memory.

This is why you don't need to buy a new phone with new hardware every time
you want to install a new app.  Regardless of the type of CPU in your
phone, it can be extended in its power of what it might compute only given
some new software.  It is in this sense that computers are "Universal",
they are universal in the same sense that of a universal remote, or in the
sense that a record player is a universal sound imitating device.  A record
player might emulate the sounds of an orchestra, Britney Spears, whale
songs, etc., all it needs is the appropriate record and it can produce the
sound.

In the same sense, all a Turing Machine (computer) needs to imitate (or
emulate) the right program or function is the right software.  Because of
this, anything that can be described in software, be it a brain emulation,
an AI, a virtual environment, a virtual machine or operating system, can
never know what hardware is running it, because the Church-Turing thesis
says that any computer is capable of running it.

This is why if consciousness is computable (the computational theory of
mind) we cannot know what is computing us (e.g. we could be in a matrix
type simulation for all we know).  The other implication is that if
computations exist in mathematics (and they do), then we exist within
mathematics.  Mathematics (or at least the part necessary to describe
computations) becomes the fundamental science of what we experience and
what is possible to experience or what we may predict about our future
experiences (physics).

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do
>> you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d.
>> >>
>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not
>> there?
>> >
>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both slits
>> in the same world...thus being non-local.
>>
>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave
>> of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one world” 
>> is
>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism.
>>
>
> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you
> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
> woo-woo
> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this
> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>

 *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
 particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be because
 particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any
 event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes us
 down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*

 Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits.
 If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a
 “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in
 parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by
 the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all
 results obtained in the parallel branches.

>>>
>>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>>

>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum interpretation
> of the superposition of states -- that a system in a superposition is in
> ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where that INTERPRETATION is
> used in quantum computers.*
>

It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

>
> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. It's
> a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be eliminated.
> AG*
>

You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits
enter the superposition of all possible states, which is why it becomes
exponentially hard to predict what happens with a larger number of qubits
in a quantum computer.  This is why large scale quantum computers must be
built, we can't just simulate them with regular computers because the
number of states it is simultaneously in quickly becomes enourmous:

1 qubit: 2 states
5 qubits: 32 states (you can use this quantum computer for free on the link
I provided)
10 qubits: 1024 states
20 qubits: 1,048,576 states (you can pay to use this quantum computer today)
30 qubits: 1,073,741,824 states
50 qubits: 1,125,899,906,842,624 states (IBM recently built a quantum
computer with 50 qubits

)
100 qubits: 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 states
200 qubits:
1,606,938,044,258,990,275,541,962,092,341,162,602,522,202,993,782,792,835,301,376
states
1000
qubits: 
10,715,086,071,862,673,209,484,250,490,600,018,105,614,048,117,055,336,074,437,503,883,703,510,511,249,361,224,931,983,788,156,958,581,275,946,729,175,531,468,251,871,452,856,923,140,435,984,577,574,698,574,803,934,567,774,824,230,985,421,074,605,062,371,141,877,954,182,153,046,474,983,581,941,267,398,767,559,165,543,946,077,062,914,571,196,477,686,542,167,660,429,831,652,624,386,837,205,668,069,376
states

We know of nothing in principal that can accurately simulate the behavior
of a system of 1000 entangled atoms in a reasonable period of time besides
a quantum computer.  The reason is the number above (2^1000) is so large
that ant attempt to simulate it will fail due to physical limits of time,
energy, and space wit

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> 
> You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the symmetry 
> breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction with the singlet 
> state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
> 
> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
> bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact 
> that I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not 
> mean that the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider 
> view.”

 OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry is 
 back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost from 
 her point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not changed. 
 It is only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, amnesia, 
 etc.).
>>> 
>>> Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
>>> above,
>> 
>> Stop speculating on people.
> 
> I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.

How do you know I did not make some effort. Maybe you imagine that I am clever 
or something. You might need to develop some sense of pedagogy.

> 
>>> or to respond to it intelligently.
>> 
>> Sop making judgement.
> 
> There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.

That is a contradiction.

> 
>>> It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in good 
>>> faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the situation.
>> 
>> This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you 
>> understand Everett.
> 
> Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding in 
> infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.

There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, like when 
Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the state of lowest 
energy level of an electron around a proton. The electron state is a 
superposition of all position possible in the corresponding orbital. After 
measurement she is entangled with that electron, and we have an infinity of 
Alice. OK? (I assume of course some classical QM; that might need some 
correction when GR is used).
The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is typical 
for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet state ud - du. 
Before measurement Alice has the same probability of finding u, or d for any 
measurement she can do in any direction. Both Alice and Bob are maximally 
ignorant of their possible measurement results. The MW on this, or a MW way to 
interpret this, to keep the rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of 
couples Alice+Bob, with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit 
assumption is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.
And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does not force 
the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of information, which actually 
would require a third person indeterminacy in Nature, which I doubt).

It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this implies 
maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction is chosen. After 
the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither Alice and Bob will be able to 
access a different world. All Alice and Bob will have to interpret the state 
like if it was s simple (two terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the 
global phase of the state.

> 
>>> The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all there 
>>> is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.
>> 
>> That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change anything in 
>> the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries only in the 
>> relative first person mind associated to bodies doing the experience. 
> 
> It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to believe that 
> symmetry cannot be destroyed,

The symmetry is destroyed from the perspective of the one doing the experiment. 
But it is extended to the couple Alice + the singlet state, although “rational 
symmetry” might be have its usual definition slightly enlarged. 

> even though I have given clear examples where this happens.

It was using some collapse. It seems to me. 

> The symmetry is destroyed totally, not just in the mind of the e

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:22, Peter Sas  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> It is not my intention to presuppose a physical reality independent of 
> consciousness. Very simply put, I start with absolute (prereflective) 
> self-awareness (ASA) as explanatory primitive (indeed, as self-causing), then 
> I argue that this ASA through its inner recursivity is aware of N and R, and 
> finally that ASA 'sees' itself reflected in those patterns in the continuum 
> that mirror its essence, patterns that thus form the mathematical structure 
> of our universe... So the physical comes out as mathematical structure in the 
> 'Divine Mind'…

That is cool, but how would formalise the ASA? It looks like starting from the 
answer. I mean that to assume even just awareness or consciousness is a strong 
assumption.
What you say is still close to Mechanism and/or the universal machine theology, 
except that here we *bet* on mechanism, and assess the computational theory of 
mind, then we derive (from some “inner recursively” indeed) the cosmic 
consciousness (the consciousness of the universal machine before we put some 
application in it), which is similar to your ASA, and then everything 
(including the physical universe- emerges constructively from that, making the 
mechanist hypothesis testable. Consciousness can be quasi axiomatically defined 
by “true, non doubtable (and thus knowable), non provable, non definable”.

Personally I am skeptical of any ontological status for the real numbers. I am 
not sure that this would be compatible with Mechanism (its usual digital form).
Arithmetic needs to be “real” for just assuming Digital Mechanism but Analysis, 
Physics, even the induction axioms are preferably considered as number’s or 
machine’s mind tools. 

Best,

Bruno

> 
> Greets,
> P.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote:

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett > wrote:

You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the 
symmetry breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction 
with the singlet state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier 
post here:

"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and 
can be reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still 
exists in some sense. If I place a large weight at some point on 
the circumference of a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of 
that wheel is lost. The fact that I can reverse the process by 
removing the imposed weight does not mean that the altered wheel is 
still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”

OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the 
symmetry is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the 
symmetry is lost from her point of view, but the general symmetry of 
the state has not changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice 
(unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).

Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I 
made above,

Stop speculating on people.

I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.

or to respond to it intelligently.

Sop making judgement.

There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.

It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in 
good faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the 
situation.

This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only 
you understand Everett.

Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.

The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all 
there is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.

That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change 
anything in the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries 
only in the relative first person mind associated to bodies doing the 
experience.

It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to believe 
that symmetry cannot be destroyed, even though I have given clear 
examples where this happens. The symmetry is destroyed totally, not just 
in the mind of the experimenter. If the symmetry is still preserved in 
some bigger picture, it is up to you to prove this. But you have not 
been able to do so. It is just an assertion on your part. And that 
assertion happens to be false.

What you have to do is to work through the application of the 
Schrödinger equation for this situation, without invoking any collapse, 
and demonstrate that the symmetry is still present in the total wave 
function. I contend that you will not be able to do this, because the 
interaction with the singlet state destroys the rotational symmetry. 
This is really a trivial observation since the Stern-Gerlach magnet 
itself is not rotationally symmetric.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

2018-08-21 Thread Peter Sas

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for your comments. 

It is not my intention to presuppose a physical reality independent of 
consciousness. Very simply put, I start with absolute (prereflective) 
self-awareness (ASA) as explanatory primitive (indeed, as self-causing), 
then I argue that this ASA through its inner recursivity is aware of N and 
R, and finally that ASA 'sees' itself reflected in those patterns in the 
continuum that mirror its essence, patterns that thus form the mathematical 
structure of our universe... So the physical comes out as mathematical 
structure in the 'Divine Mind'...

Greets,
P.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 11:14, Peter Sas  wrote:
> 
> Might be of interest:
> 
> https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html

It is a bit long, and I will read it at ease. I certainly can compare this 
favourably with Plotinus and thus with the theology of the universal machine.

Note that you do the same mistake as Turing (and me) when identifying the 
computable real numbers with the total computable functions. Your definition 
can be shown to make addition and multiplication into non computable 
operations. This is usually corrected by imposing a modulus of convergence. But 
it is a bit of a technical detail, and the set of total computable functions 
from N to N is a reasonable approximation of the computable real numbers. 

The other problem, which I will not explain here, but refer to my papers (see 
my URL, or consult ResearchGate, or Acemy.edu) is that you seem to assume a 
primitive physical reality, which is already weird in an idealist context. But 
I have to read your paper more cautiously. I just made a diagonal look! More on 
this later, plausibly.

Bruno

> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 08:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really 
> don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct 
> words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA.

Actually, I have very recently wrote a long post on exactly this (Church’s 
thesis), but I have decided to first explain the combinators …

Here I give you a simple explanation of what is Church’s thesis (also called 
Post thesis, Kleene’s thesis, Turing’s thesis, or very often now; the Church’s 
Turing thesis).

Do you know hat is a function? Do you know what is a function from N to N 
(where N is the set of natural numbers, i.e. N = {0, 1, 2, 3, …}).

Now the set of all functions from N to N is very big, and big sets led often to 
paradoxes, so people have tried to restrict the notion of function, and one of 
the restriction has consisted in the “computable function”.

Intuitively, a computable function is a function (from N to N) for which we can 
explain how to compute it (in a finite time, on its finite argument, and the 
idea is that the explanation to compute the function have to be encodable in a 
finite way).

For example, most functions studied by mathematicians are obviously computable, 
and it is easy to convince oneself that a function is (intuitively) computable. 
But people sought a precise definition of computable.

Church invented the “lambda calculus” formalism for that effect, like 
independently Turing invented the Turing (digital) machine for that effect.

Church just defined a computable function by one that we can encode in his 
lambda calculus. It is his student Kleene who understood that it is has  to be 
thesis (overlapping philosophy and mathematics). In fact Kleene will see that 
the existence of universal formalism entails incompleteness quasi-directly.

Turing just defined a computable function by a function computable by a 
machine, but he saw too that this was a philosophical thesis.

Turing showed, nevertheless the first equivalence theorem: a function is 
computable by a Turing machine if and only if it is computable by a lambda 
calculus expression (or a combinator).

Post did already,declared that a function is computable if and only if it is 
computable in his formal definition (Post production system). Post too 
understood that it was a postulate of high importance. Later it was proved that 
a function is Post-calculable iff it is Turing calculable, iff it is Church 
calculable, making all those thesis equivalent.

So the Church-Post-Kleene-Turing-markov … thesis is that a function (always 
from N to N) is intuitively (human) computable if and only if it is computable 
by any of those formal system.

Gödel will disbelieve in Church thesis, and miss it, despite proving that 
arithmetic emulates all computable functions, but he was not sure he get them 
all. Only after reading Turing, will Gödel accept the Church Turing thesis, and 
thus definition of computable function.

Do you know Cantor theorem? Do you know the theorem asserting that the set of 
functions from N to N (or from N to {0, 1}) is not enumerable?

If yes, I will show you that the Church Turing thesis entails incompleteness of 
al all formal system rather easily. If no, I will send more explanation.

Have you tried to follow the thread of the combinators. This is again a formal 
system capable of defining all computable functions. So, Church-thesis is 
equivalent with “all intuitively computable functions are computable by 
combinators”. I will prove this.

Tell me if this helped, I am not sure of your background.

Bruno

> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument.  I have:
>>> 
>> Clearly. I was referring to the enumeration in the SANE2004 paper, which is 
>> kind of canonical:
> 
> OK. I also have the SANE paper.
> 
>> 
>> 7) The seventh step introduces the Universal Dovetailer (UD). Let N denotes 
>> the set of
>> natural numbers. A function from N to N is said to be total if it is defined 
>> on all natural
>> numbers. A function is said to be computable iff there is a programme 
>> FORTRAN which
>> computes it12. Church thesis (CT) makes the particular choice of FORTRAN 
>> irrelevant. CT
>> claims that all computable functions, total or not, are computed by 
>> algorithm expressible in
>> FORTRAN. In particular all total computable functions are computed by such 
>> FORTRAN
>> program...
> 
> Yes I understood it introduced the UD and per the C-T inferred that all 
> possible computations are performed by it.
> 
> Bruno wrote,"In that case consciousness is associated with a digital 
> self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
>  a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality"
> 
> I objected, "But you didn't show that."
> 
> You responded, "This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is 
> pretty much required for the Church Turing thesis to hold."
> 
> So I still don't see why the UD implies consciousness is associated with a 
> digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom” (primary) 
> physical reality from an arithmetical reality.

It is not the UD which implies this, but just the digital mechanist hypothesis. 
A person whose brain is in a vat, with the right configuration, cannot know 
that she is in a brain in a vat. Similarly, we cannot know if we are processed 
by something primarily physical or not. If I implement the combinators in 
FORTRAN or in LISP, no combinators can distinguish the two from their personal 
experience (that without observation). Same for the arithmetical/physical. 

The UD is used to formulate the measure problem, not to argue that a digital 
machine cannot distinguish an arithmetical from a physical “master machine”, 
which is a direct consequence of digital mechanism.

> It seems to me like the rock that computes everything.  The UD is effectively 
> running every possible simulation at once

So to speak. The universal dovetailer has to dovetail, of course.

> and so is simulating everything at once.  Whether some thread within it 
> simulates you or simulates a rock on alpha centauri becomes a matter of 
> interpretation. 

? If it simulates you, you will feel to be conscious. The point will be that 
there is no rock which could ever be simulable by any computer, except those 
exloiting directly the infinities of computations below our level of 
substitution, like plausibly, a quantum computer.

> The computations of the UD can have no unique interpretation.

A computation *is* an interpretation, made by a universal machine. That is what 
the universal do: computation. Then with mechanism, some can be associated to 
consciousness, when they emulate self-referential entity.  If curiosity is 
conscious on Mars, it has to be conscious in the virtual mars during its 
training on Earth, and it has to be conscious in arithmetic, in virtue of the 
same number relations.

> 
>> 
>> 8) Yes, but what if we don’t grant a concrete robust physical universe? Up 
>> to this
>> stage, we can still escape the conclusion of the seven preceding reasoning 
>> steps, by
>> postulating that a ‘‘physical universe’’ really ‘‘exists’’ and is too little 
>> in the sense of not being
>> able to generate the entire UD*,
> 
> The entire UD is infinite.  So it cannot exist in the physical universe.

Better to not assume a “god" when doing metaphysics; It biases the whole 
reasoning.The idea that seeing is the criterion of reality is the Aristotelian 
speculation that Plato warned us to not fall in. 

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
>> nor any reasonable portions of it, so that our usual physical
>> predictions would be safe from any interference with its UD-generated 
>> ‘‘little’’ computational
>> histories. Such a move can be considered as being ad hoc and disgraceful. It 
>> can also be...
>> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscr

Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

2018-08-21 Thread Peter Sas

Might be of interest:

https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?



> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:53, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is
>>associated with a digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
>>a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality
>> 
>> 
>> But you didn't show that. 
> 
> This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty much 
> required for the Church Turing thesis to hold. Of course, step 7 relies on 
> robustness of the *-verse, for which step 8 is the remedy.
> 
> But already, I believe the *-verse must be robust, as otherwise quantum 
> computing supremacy will never work. Empirical support of this contention is 
> due real soon now™. So I suspect step 8 could well be consigned to the 
> dustbin of history...
> 
>> You only showed that it would be true if the digital
>> entity were immersed in an environment.  You argued that the environment 
>> could
>> also be digital...but the doctor couldn't provide that.  But then your 
>> argument
>> fails.  You've only shown that the digital entity can exist in a digital
>> environment consisting of digital matter (including the entities digital
>> brain).  So you've just replicated the world except you've appended "digital"
>> in front of every noun and relation.  If everything is digital, then digital
>> matter may be primary in this digital world.  The adjective "digital" has 
>> lost
>> it's metaphysical significance...unless you can derive some observable
>> consequence of "digital".
>> 
> 
> This is a critique of step 8 (the MGA), which curryfies the environment into 
> the computation. My money's on robustness being empirically confirmed in the 
> next few decades…

I would say that the robustness has never cease to be confirmed. It is what we 
live everyday. But to solve the mind-body problem, we have to explain that 
robustness by the “many-dreams internal interpretation of 
arithmetic/combinator/…”.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?


> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the symmetry 
>>> breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction with the singlet 
>>> state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
>>> 
>>> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
>>> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
>>> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
>>> bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact that 
>>> I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not mean that 
>>> the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”
>> 
>> OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry is 
>> back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost from her 
>> point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not changed. It is 
>> only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).
> 
> Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
> above,


Stop speculating on people.



> or to respond to it intelligently.


Sop making judgement.




> It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in good 
> faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the situation.


This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you 
understand Everett. 




> The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all there is 
> to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.

That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change anything in the 
big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries only in the relative 
first person mind associated to bodies doing the experience. 

Bruno





> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?


> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 1:19:40 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 10:29, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:21:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 12:21, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:51:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 17 Aug 2018, at 19:34, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 9:08:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:37, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s 
>> my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
>> possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
> 
> For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing 
> about Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the 
> classical sense of "possible".
> 
>> That makes infinitely many worlds.
> 
> But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible 
> happens.
> 
> He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG 
 
 With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
 amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the 
 machine. Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in 
 both QM and Mechanism.
 
 Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG 
>>> 
>>> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
>>> 
>>> I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that 
>>> every outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. 
>>> I don't see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, 
>>> which can be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it 
>>> argued. AG 
>> 
>> It is dictated by the wave equation (or Heisenberg Matrix). The worlds are 
>> (notably) the relative state defined by the branch of the superposition, and 
>> we cannot throw them away. That is so true that the founders of QM invented 
>> the notion of an observer collapsing the wave to select the outcome they 
>> saw, but that addition violates the SWE. That is reasonable FAPP, but it 
>> presupposes that the observer does NOT obey the SWE, and this introduce a 
>> dubious dualism (incompatible with Mechanism, among other absurdities, like 
>> FTL, etc.).
>> 
>> IMO, this is an inadequate justification for assuming that every eigenvalue 
>> that can be measured, that is possible to be measured, must be measured.
> 
> The whole point of the MW is that a measurement is explained as a classical 
> mechanical events, or a thermodynamical event which has to be locally 
> irreversible so as to memorisable. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> There is nothing in the SWE that requires this. Further, as you have be 
>> informed many times here, there is no requirement that collapse must be 
>> caused by a human observer.
> 
> No collapse = MW (except for the guiding wave theory which is as much MW than 
> Everett, as Bell argued once, but  with added particles so as to select one 
> history among many).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Feynman showed by a simple argument that this is unnecessary. Just let an 
>> instrument record the outcomes. AG
> 
> 
> That is exactly my point. Measurement (in the mechanical sense of Feynman and 
> Everett) are usually done by the environment itself, which is not recordable, 
> and so we lost the ability to get back the interference (we cannot erase a 
> memory than we cannot locate and isolate).
> 
> I think your comment illustrates the basic fallacy of your theory. You think 
> memory is a necessary condition for measurements to occur.

Not at all. I told you that measurement = interaction. Memory is needed just to 
repeat a measurement and share the results with others.
Memory is not needed for measurement to occur, but only to be … well, memorised 
and part of a living experience/life.

Even if just one photon interact with the dead+alive cat, the wave looks like 
collapsed to me, despite the absence of any real physical collapse, and me 
noticing nothing (and thus not doing the measurement myself).




> They occur independent memory, just like the multitude of events which 
> undoubtedly occur without any witnesses.

Sure.



> The memory, in the case of Feynman's thought experiment replacing a human 
> observer with a detector, just serves to validate or confirm that it did in 
> fact occur, AFTER THE FACT, and with interference. AG

No problem.

Bruno




> 
> Feynman formulation of QM exemplifies this. It

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?


> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/20/2018 11:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I said you must include the detector, which has certain angle, and an 
>>> interaction term.   Then the uncertainty is only whether the detector says 
>>> "up" or "down" and there are only two "worlds" that split by decoherence.
>> Yes, that is why the choice of the angle and the detector portioned the 
>> superposition in some way, but as Alice mind cannot impose a preference on 
>> this to nature and the psi state, she lost the ability to access to some 
>> worlds. Thus the multi-multiverse. Which I think is just the multiverse seen 
>> by taking account the quantum state is a Gauge state, having always a phase, 
>> except for the big whole. It is first person plural view, and thus psi is 
>> more epistemic than Everett would have liked, perhaps, and things are 
>> undoubtably subtle there. My point is that believing Everett remains non 
>> local is premature, at the least, and is usually based on some naive 
>> conception of “classical world”.
> 
> The classical world is epistemologically prior.  Everything about QM is 
> inferred and based on "classical" observation.  

That is coherent with Mechanism, which is essentially a classical theory. Note 
that formal QM is also a classical theory. Hilbert spaces re boolean notion.
The classical world, or logic is epistemologically prior. I am OK with this.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?